An update has been pushed out today. It has some more engine improvements and should have fixed the starter issue. I'll let oriole_fan go into more detail on that.

It also includes some more UI changes such as the collapsible page help and the Coaching 101 page. This new page is there to help give a basic understanding of the new coaching features. It's also where switching from basic to advanced coaching settings and vice versa will be done. Users will be able to switch back and forth even after release but switching from advanced back to basic will reset some of the settings. For example, the advanced position role depth charts will be cleared, formations' position slots using these will be set to use the basic position role, and playbooks' formations will be set to the default formation settings.

With the caveat that I'm probably a contrarian, I just ran a few quick test games and I like what I see. The running game isn't quite where it should be but it's coming back around and scores seem to be more within 'real life' expectations.

Not sure about this engine, but I know that under the old engine, the pass distribution set the "first look" only, and the QB would still "check down" to other receivers. I don't know if that's what is happening here or not.

I didn't change anything with the selection of the wide receiver. I'll make sure my changes didn't affect anything on that end. Thanks.

DETAILS OF ENGINE CHANGES :
Fixed Starter bug (sorry about the work ethic stuff), Changed the passing percentage to test out a more in line base percentage, Moved passing result calculations to results class to determine the final step results to be better based on probability, changed play by play to use a text factory to create the output string.

DETAILS OF ENGINE CHANGES :
Fixed Starter bug (sorry about the work ethic stuff), Changed the passing percentage to test out a more in line base percentage, Moved passing result calculations to results class to determine the final step results to be better based on probability, changed play by play to use a text factory to create the output string.

These terms scare me as I attempt to look at results. I my feeble old mind I would think this OL vs DL ? Does QB have time to throw? If yes then is WR/RB/(and TE one day) vs LB/DB able to get separation ? How much? (based on chosen attributes) - Then QB GI determines target and QB STR + Tech determines accuracy of throw. If accuracy is within WR/RB/?TE range - based on degree of separation can he catch (better WR need less separation), is he defended or is it an INT. No real need for percentages and probabilities - numbers are there - let the numbers determine the result.

Posted by katzphang88 on 8/2/2013 3:04:00 PM (view original):DETAILS OF ENGINE CHANGES :
Fixed Starter bug (sorry about the work ethic stuff), Changed the passing percentage to test out a more in line base percentage, Moved passing result calculations to results class to determine the final step results to be better based on probability, changed play by play to use a text factory to create the output string.

These terms scare me as I attempt to look at results. I my feeble old mind I would think this OL vs DL ? Does QB have time to throw? If yes then is WR/RB/(and TE one day) vs LB/DB able to get separation ? How much? (based on chosen attributes) - Then QB GI determines target and QB STR + Tech determines accuracy of throw. If accuracy is within WR/RB/?TE range - based on degree of separation can he catch (better WR need less separation), is he defended or is it an INT. No real need for percentages and probabilities - numbers are there - let the numbers determine the result.

+1 that lottery crap in version 2.0 is for the birds(and peope that do NOT know how to recruit)!

I just must not understand programming... seems to me it shouldn't be difficult to establish cause and effect stuff. Putting in something the "tweaks" cause and effect in order to achieve variability seems ridiculous. ESPECIALLY when now if I do 100 different things I can he exact same result 90% of the time, but if I do the same thing 100 times I a different result 90% of the time. If X < Y than Y wins. Start there, engine 4.0 is complete. No need for If X < Y than Y jumps in the air, while wearing clown panties and X wins. Remove clown panties variable please.

Today I lost to a team that I should have lost to but I still don't really know why.

Posted by trombumpet on 8/2/2013 6:32:00 PM (view original):I just must not understand programming... seems to me it shouldn't be difficult to establish cause and effect stuff. Putting in something the "tweaks" cause and effect in order to achieve variability seems ridiculous. ESPECIALLY when now if I do 100 different things I can he exact same result 90% of the time, but if I do the same thing 100 times I a different result 90% of the time. If X < Y than Y wins. Start there, engine 4.0 is complete. No need for If X < Y than Y jumps in the air, while wearing clown panties and X wins. Remove clown panties variable please.

Today I lost to a team that I should have lost to but I still don't really know why.

So if I set a game plan, and have players set in positions, and match up against another team with their set game plan and players set in positions, and I simulate this matchup 1000 times, the results should be the EXACT SAME EVERY SINGLE TIME? And I mean EXACTLY the same, same play-by-play result, same stats, same EVERYTHING.

Because that's what you get when you eliminate randomness in a simulation.

Posted by trombumpet on 8/2/2013 6:32:00 PM (view original):I just must not understand programming... seems to me it shouldn't be difficult to establish cause and effect stuff. Putting in something the "tweaks" cause and effect in order to achieve variability seems ridiculous. ESPECIALLY when now if I do 100 different things I can he exact same result 90% of the time, but if I do the same thing 100 times I a different result 90% of the time. If X < Y than Y wins. Start there, engine 4.0 is complete. No need for If X < Y than Y jumps in the air, while wearing clown panties and X wins. Remove clown panties variable please.

Today I lost to a team that I should have lost to but I still don't really know why.

So if I set a game plan, and have players set in positions, and match up against another team with their set game plan and players set in positions, and I simulate this matchup 1000 times, the results should be the EXACT SAME EVERY SINGLE TIME? And I mean EXACTLY the same, same play-by-play result, same stats, same EVERYTHING.

Because that's what you get when you eliminate randomness in a simulation.

Yes Bob - at some point near the very beginning of GD neolithic time this should happen. Every player at every position has ratings of 50 across the board for all attributes, Form IQ of 50, and game planning that offsets each other - every game should be a mirror of the next. When that happens - and only when that happens - we will advance to the iron age and begin playing with attribute differences, variables with fatigue, Form IQ, formation vs formation can occur to see if what you would expect happens. When the expected is accomplished we progress to the bronze age with the addition of the random occurances found in football - the injuries that can throw the balance of a line-up off, the penalties, the occurances of blocked kicks, downed punts, and other items that can inject some of the unknown into the sim - regardless of attributes. With the proper adjustment of attribute vs attribute match-ups or attribute attrition - I feel that any game will be within an expected range of results - with expected match-up outcomes without the randomization, percentages or probabilities dumping possibilities of outcomes into multiple buckets from which will pour some result.

I believe that with the wide range of attributes of our SIM players it would be highly unlikely that any one player would have all the needed scores to be superior on every play for a entire game or season.

The goal would be to reach the Renaissance of GD - understandable results with deterministic outcomes based on our coaching inputs and a minimal spread of bewitching results based on probabilities, percentages and possibilities.

BUT - alas - we may never know this type of enlightenment - as our programmers are under the the spell of the magical "Bucket". And we as coaches may be required to linger in this nether world of superior match-ups of our OL being relegated to a DefenseModerate outcome! Oh the agony . . . .